Larry Peters
-
Posts
235 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Larry Peters
-
-
Dave - Rule #1 of this forum is "All members have to provide a biography. A link to this biography should be added to their signature". Where's yours? I remember you hastling me before I added my photo. You are one of the very few members of the forum not in compliance.
Len
biography? rofl ---
buy the book and read it!
David, why should anyone read a book that has been debunked to get an answer on a forum that is supposed to offer free discussion?
Larry
-
Nowhere in the book does anyone refer to filming the pilot film
on a DIFFERENT STREET! That would make NO SENSE!!!! Apparently
the pilot film was taken from the Zapruder pedestal perhaps
20 minutes before the motorcade arrival. It was NOT doctored,
but shows the crowd as they were 20 minutes before the arrival
of the limo. That is why the spectators on the north sidewalk
SHOW ABSOLUTELY NO EMOTION NOR MOVEMENT DESPITE
THE PRESIDENT PASSING BY. NOBODY WAVES, NOBODY
MOVES. This is completely abnormal.
If Colby wonders why his asinine challenges go unanswered, he should
consider the ineptness of his questions.
Jack
Mr, White, I am shocked that Mr. Simkin allows you to get away with talking down to another forum member the way you did here, especially when he has to know that you are in error yourself. You just told this forum, without a shred of evidence to support it, that the alleged "pilot film" was taken 20 minutes before the motorcades arrival. So you have just implied that you have evidence that all those people seen in the Zapruder film were already at the curb just as we see them as the limo comes down Elm Street some 20 minutes later. Do you care to tell this forum just what you did to be able to make such a statement? Let's start with A.J.Millican - Are you saying that Millican is on record somewhere saying that he stood at the curb with arms his crossed and looking at the street some 20 minutes before Kennedy's arrival ... of course he didn't say this - you just made that up! How about Mary Woodward ... where is she on record saying that she too stood along Elm Street's curb looking at the street some 20 minutes before Kennedy's arrival ... of course she didn't say this - you just invented that scenario off the top of your head.
Something else in what you said in your response doesn't make sense to me. You said when talking about the people seen along the sidewalk in the Zapruder film that "NOBODY MOVES". Not only is that statement false, but you are implying that those people stood along the Elm Street curb 20 minutes before Kennedy's arrival and did so while standing motionless. Now why would people stand along the curb and not move 20 minutes before the President arrived? And just how close have you looked at the Zapruder film to make such a statement that these people didn't move. I have posted a clip here that I got off another forum that exposed this claim of yours as also being in error. Both the man in the hat and the woman next to him move in the Zapruder film. This forum also showed other women's heads turning and it pointed out some witnesses hands moving as they clapped.
Now having seen this information, please tell this forum why Mr. Colby's challenges are asinine and why your claims are not?
Larry
-
I see that Mr.Peters is back amongst the living.... and is sounding the same, boring.
....Nice to know that Larry can read, and that
is fine, as I have already read all of his posts, tit for tat is fair...and so is the fact that Mr.Colby had
his say, I had mine, and now Mr. Peters has also had his..
All somewhat different, but that is what this is all about...or is it??... the right to our opinion..
The differences lie in that I presented evidence, Mr. Colby called for the discloser of evidence, and you didn't address either, but just ran up replies like this one - no pictures - no facts - just cheerleading from the sidelines.
I do hope Mr.Peters keeps reading until he comes to the first day evidence Zapruder
information, and then hestitates long enough to read some documentation and
real information, not mine, but the witnesses, Doctors and such from Parkland
..he may even learn a few things.
Anytime you wish to address Zapruder film alteration by way of the Parkland doctors statements or any other means, please feel free to and I will gladly respond accordingly.
Fine "overreaction", gee I do wonder why?? the truth must hurt...
This is known as "over kill" some seem to think that the louder and nastier they are, the more scared
others will be, so that they will hush and disappear...been there, seen that, and read it all before....
it doesn't work with all...never has...some even have the intelligence to ask and wonder "Why" ??
and come back, Lord forbid...with perhaps even more information, and reasonings..
Mr.Peters, and Mr.Colby......Calm down...I don't stress much on anything now because,
"A" Type personalities such as you are exhibiting ,die young.....
You must have our post mixed up with David Healy's. You have been presented information, if you disagree with it, then offer a sensible debate and stop wasting everyones time. You people continually respond with ramblings that never once address the actual alleged alteration evidence and I am somewhat surprized that Mr. Simkin allows it to go on.
I have lived quite a long time now, too late for me to concern
myself about such, but not too late for you..so do take a deep breath
and get over it, you would think that this is the very first time on a
Forum that Mr. Colby had been called on what he stated...and or the first time that Mr Peters has
read a post that he did not agree with..??
Good for you that you stick up for your friend, Mr.Peters, and nice to see after you have done so,
that Mr. Colby becomes brave enough to have his say and reply to moi..
Continue and keep in mind, that after all we alterationists housewives are a dangerous lot ....
we will not be shut up...
If by calling yourself "dangerous" and by that you mean someone who replies to this forum with ridiculous say-nothing responses that offer not a single piece of data one way or the other concerning the actual alleged alteration claims being presented, then I agree with your assessment of yourself.
Larry
-
I get sick feeling when I see people like yoyrself flaming others for showing a little common sense as if it takes some vast knowledge of the Kennedy case to do so. It's a black eye on this forum and a black eye on yourself in my view. The points made above are things we all were taught in high school, so why does one need to be a seasoned researcher to understand these simpple principals? Now prove me wrong and address the issues or prove me right and just continue on as nothing more than a mouth piece.
Larry
____
Oh come on Bill -- where'd you go to high school again.....?
So, 6 continuous frames out of a 18.3 fps film -- let's see, do the math -- ah, that's just under 1/3rd of a second right? Show it to the lurkers in REALtime, what the real debate is -- wouldn't want others to think you're up to something, now would we - Most of us don't need slo-mo, what's that about (our viewing pleasure? LOL) there's no suggestion the Warren Commission viewed the film in slo-mo either.
Oh -- and have these frames been de-interlaced? You do know if these frames came from a video? There's two fields to a single frame, btw....
Still ill? Need a bowl?
Bernice let the clowns go -- they're not worth your time... Lancer forum as a photo venue is on the wayout - these dudes are looking for green pastures -- bumbling efforts at forum ettiquette displayed here announces their arrival....
David, I would appreciate it if you called me by my name. If Bill or someone else wishes to put up with your game playing, then play with them, until then I will ask that you address me by my name - Larry.
I would also appreciate that if you are going to stand-up and support the alteraionist, despite your claiming to have never seen evidence of alteration to the Zapruder film yourself, that you at least respond to the alteration claims being presented. The issue I have raised is over the allegations being made that have been easily proven inaccurate by those who sought to test them. I would enjoy seeing it shown that the Zapruder film was altered, but I want to know that it was shown to be done by solid evidence. I might also add that if you think the frames need to be de-interlaced, then by all means you want to be sure to remind the alterationist of this for we don't want them making false claims by using faulty evidence - do we? Again, you come across as a hypocrite for sitting back and say nothing about your concerns for accuracy when alteration claims are being made, but rather only when the very evidence that was used to make an alteration claim is now being debunked do you seem to worry about such details.
And that is good advice that you have for Bernice. It is always best to say nothing when you don't have anything to counter with. How proud Mr. Simkin must be to have your input on this forum.
Larry
Good grief...PETERS/MILLER is back! I thought John had banned him
from participation.
Jack
Well Mr. White, like everything you claim about Zapruder film alteration - you are wrong once again.
Larry
-
Larry er, yeah.... wrote:
Mr. Fetzer, can you provide this forum with any names of photographic experts who have peer reviewed Costells'a work and agreed with it? It seems to me that I read once that his formula for how he reached is conclusions was solicited so it could be validated, but he had declined to share it.
__________________
Mr. Peter's it is incumbent on YOU to find a photo expert and/or Physicists that will dispute Dr. Costella,s work. As of this date in time, you've had well over two going on 3 year's to produce ONE --In all your efforts you can't produce one that'll go on the record ----
Noise Mr. Peter's.....
Get to work champ!
David, I see that you are still the same loud mouth you were when I responded on this forum the last time. You bad mouth those who stand-up to the false claims of alteration while you support alterationist because you have not been allowed to examine the Zapruder film original. That is about as silly as someone saying they can see the moon, but until they actaully can stand on it themselves, they will consider it suspect as not being real.
I might also tell you that when a scientist comes forward with alleged new discoveries, it is they who seek peer review and not up to the rest of the world to chase them around in cirlces trying to get them to show their work. It is my understanding that Mr. Costella has refused to show his work so it can be tested, so if that is the case - how can any expert validate it? And if this is so, then why would you sanction such behavior? To criticize the party responsible for not allowing just anyone to have access to the Zapruder film only to not feel that Costella should make his work available for study is being what most would call a hypocrite.
Larry
-
LOL........You speak of arrogance:
You admit ,you have not the knowledge of a JFK researcher, yet presume to be a "debunker of nonsense" and continue to attack those that do, and have researched and obtained such....???
Bernice, are you really a researcher or just a mouth piece for the alteration crowd? I have seen your responses in the past and they are little more than what you just did here. How much of a researcher does one need to be to see Jean Hill and Mary Moorman's shadows on the curb in Altgens number six photo? How much of a researcher does one need to be to see where it is written in the Zapruder Hoax book that Altgens number six is considered genuine? How much of a researcher does one need to be to apply a simple rule of perspective to see that Zapruder was looking down on the south pasture which would make Foster look taller than she really was against a line stretched between two lamppost and that had the view of been from ground level then the line and the top of her head would separate further apart? How much of a researcher does one need to be to know that if Moorman's photo was filmed just 30 minutes after the assassination and shown on television by 3:30 that afternoon, that there was not a window of time there for it to be altered? How much about the Kennedy case does one need to know to just have done a simple overlay of the Franzen's to see why Mrs. Franzen appeared taller between frames ... because you know don't you that is what happens when you step backwards when being viewed from a high elevation like that Zapruder had. By the way, how much of a researcher does one need to be to do the same for Charles Brehm and his son to see that Brehm's upper body turned away from his son which caused both little Joe and Oliver to be seen behind him from Zapruder's location?
Here is a clip I saved from Lancer when the Hoax book was being reviewed there. Please tell everyone how much does one need to know about the Kennedy case to see that Mr. Franzen stepped forward while his wife stepped backward, which gave off a false illusion that she somehow had grown between those film frames mentioned in the Great Zapruder Hoax?
Here is another clip showing why Brehm's son showed up from behind his father so quickly. How much does one need to know about the Kennedy case to understand how this happened and why it looked the way it did on the Zapruder film?
Notice how Brehm's upper body rotation not only assisted in his son being seen so quickly, but also allowed more of beverly Oliver to become visible to Zapruder as well without her even moving her feet.
I get a sick feeling when I see people like yoyrself flaming others for showing a little common sense as if it takes some vast knowledge of the Kennedy case to have basic reasoning skills. It's a black eye on this forum and a black eye on yourself when you show more loyalty to poor research than you do to President Kennedy's right to a fair and accurate inquiry done on his behalf. The points made above are things we all were taught in high school, so why does one need to be a seasoned researcher to understand these simple principals? Now prove me wrong and address the issues or prove me right and just continue on as nothing more than a mouth piece.
Larry
-
I had heard you were arrogant but hadn't noticed myself until now.
Be careful, Mr. Fetzer. Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Whether one is a Christian or not, there is truth in that message.
Larry
-
Anyone who is serious about the issues of alteration--and those who
are arguing without looking at the evidence presented in the book
are not--should go to my public issues web site and study the Intro
to Zapruder Film Alteration presented there by John P. Costella,
Ph.D., who is the leading expert on technical issues related to
the film. I cannot imagine how anyone who studies the evidence
he presents could possibly continue to deny that the film has been
massively altered--actually, recreated, because otherwise ghost-
images in the sprocket areas, which link successive frames toget-
ther, would have revealed the deception immediately!
Mr. Fetzer, can you provide this forum with any names of photographic experts who have peer reviewed Costells'a work and agreed with it? It seems to me that I read once that his formula for how he reached is conclusions was solicited so it could be validated, but he had declined to share it.
Larry
-
All the hot air around here regarding (non-alteration) the Zapruder film is just that, HOT air -- get other pros here or read the 1964 standard for the art craft -- what's a matter with you guys, lazy? If you don't understand how it works, ask...
When the other non alteration side of the argument re the camera original Zapruder Film chain of posession/custody time line is understood, I'll be open to meaningful discussion --
David, You are on record on this very Forum stating that you have not seen any proof that the Zapruder film has been altered. Your position was only that the ability to alter the film was present at the time of the assassination. So if you are going to start talking about "hot air" when mentioning non-alterationist, just remember that you in a sense have said the same things they have.
Larry
-
John...everything you ask for is in TGZFH. I take it you have not read the book.
Jack
Hi Jack, no I haven't read it (I'm happy to deal with individiual items that people choose to present here though) It might be good to use as a reference for studying the papers I hope to see. I find being asked to judge something that at the same time is presented as something only 'educated' people can judge a bit of a dead lock.
Hello, John. I see Fetzer mentions that Bill Miller is untrustworthy, well allow me to show you why Fetzer says what he does and you can judge who is untrustworthy for yourself. In the Great Zapruder Film Hoax, Jack White, along with Fetzer said they had shown that Moorman was in the street when she took her number five Polaroid. Miller pointed out to these guys a couple of years before the book came out that Moorman's camera was above the windshields of the cycles passing by her. Miller knew this because the cycles stacked upward across her photo. Miller confirmed his opinion when he was the only researcher who bothered to find out that the standing height for a DPD cycle was 58" from the ground to the top of the windshield. White gave Moorman's camera lens height off the street as lower than 54".
Now let me stop and show you a caption that is written in the Great Zapruder Hoax book about James Altgens photograph number six -
At a time when Fetzer and White were saying that Moorman and Hill were in the street, Altgens photo which they claim is genuine proves them to be in serious error, yet they ignored this evidence when presented to them and they pushed a known falsehood in their book. Study the photo for yourself. There are three shadows in the lower right hand corner. One belongs to Charles Brehm, the other two belong to Hill and Moorman.
Some time ago I posted the above information on this forum and added that Jean Hill was on record as saying that she stepped back out of the street by the time Mary took her photograph. I even gave the reference to Jean Hill's interview on Black Op Radio where Jean was asked point blank by a caller if she was standing in the street when the President passed her? Jean replied that she had stepped in the street, but before the first shot sounded she had gotten back out of it. How did Jack White then reply ------ Jack countered with a carefully edited film clip where Jean told someone she had stepped into the street. Jack made sure to have stopped the clip before one could see what point in time Jean was talking about, as well as he totally ignored Jean's own words telling the listener to the radio show that she was back out of the street before the first shot was fired. So now who is unstrustworthy and who is credible enough to stand up and tell it like it is? These guys bad mouth Miller because he stood up to them and systematically debunked all their ridiculous claims. They bad mouth Conway because she has banned both men from ever speaking at another one of Lancer's conferences because they have ruined their credibilty amoung the JFK research community, which by the way John Simkin was a speaker at Lancer this year. The same can be said for Copa because they won't have White or Fetzer as speakers either. Kevin Costener said in the JFK movie while portraying Jim Garrison, "Let justice be done, though the Heavens fall!" Now watch them guys try and paint you a different picture, but the truth is the truth just like a tree is a tree and a rock is a rock, regardless of what ever name they try to give it.
Larry
-
I thought it might be a good idea for us to list the best ten books on the JFK Assassination. I would be interested in other people’s views on this.
1. Larry Hancock, Someone Would Have Talked (2003)
The best account of the latest information available on the case. Another advantage is that Larry is willing to answer queries via this forum.
2. Gaeton Fonzi, The Last Investigation (1993)
An impressive piece of detective work. Fonzi was the an investigator for the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Well worth reading next to The Plot to Kill the President by the HSCA’s G. Robert Blakey and Richard Billings.
3. Harold Weisberg, Whitewash: The Report on the Warren Report (1966)
The most thorough analysis of the Warren Report available. The best starting point if you still believe Oswald was the lone gunman.
4. Anthony Summers, The Kennedy Conspiracy (2002)
Good overview of the case. The 2002 edition includes updates on John Martino, David Phillips, Carlos Marcello, John Roselli, and released CIA and FBI files.
5. Dick Russell, The Man Who Knew Too Much (2003)
I am not sure I am convinced by the Nagell story but it is an excellent account of a very personal investigation. Includes some good interviews with some interesting characters involved in the case.
6. Richard D. Mahoney, Sons & Brothers (1999)
Not really about the assassination but provides a detailed account of RFK’s response to what happened. Mahoney gives the impression he knows more than he is letting on (probably due to the relationship of his father with JFK).
7. Joachim Joesten, The Dark Side of Lyndon Baines Johnson (1968)
Joesten was denounced as a KGB agent when this book came out (he was a former member of the German Communist Party). I do not like his tabloid style of writing but he asks all the right questions and was the first to point the finger at LBJ.
8. Jim Garrison, On the Trail of the Assassins (1988)
A surprisingly well-written book. Like Dick Russell’s book, very much a personal investigation. Garrison come across as an honest but a naive man.
9. Seth Kantor, Who Was Jack Ruby? (1978)
A great book from a man who was there from the beginning. You get the impression Kantor was protecting some of his contacts and was not telling the full story. Shame he died before he could write his follow-up book.
10. Fabian Escalante, CIA Covert Operations 1959-62 (2004)
A well-informed account written by the former head of Cuban State Security. Cuba's foremost authority on U.S. covert operations against Cuba.
Best Reference Book
Michael Benson, Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination (1993)
A good starting point for anyone who wants to know about the 1,400 suspects, victims, witnesses and investigators in the case. Needs updating and is poor on Interpen and the Anti-Castro Cubans.
John, I believe Benson's book has been revised and reissued, maybe last year?
Larry
-
Yes Larry but both points are irrelevant because Bill can only suggest the man in the b/w footage maybe white, his capture is not of sufficient quality to prove that that's the actual skin of his neck we are looking at.
As for the headwear, we are seeing the mans' hat from two totally different angles, it may look to you like it's on the side of his head in BELL but it ain't(btw, a hat on the side would only suggest an overseas cap wouldn't it?).
I have watched Bill present the evidence concerning this matter over an extended period of time and he refers to it as circumstantial evidence. I have also noticed that certain things you had relied on to reach your conclusion was shown to be in error from time to time and yet your opinion never changes. One of the latter errors was in thinking that the sunlight was hitting off the man's neck, thus making it appear light in tone. As Bill pointed out - this was not the case. I'm sorry, but the man in Moorman's photograph appears to be wearing an overseas cap. The man Bill shows from the rear and on the walkway also has on what looks like an overseas cap. The wide "V" shape Bill shows us is quite discernible IMO. His left sleeve doesn't appear to be rolled up, nor does the skin on his neck look dark enough to be the black man in the Bell film.
-
The man in the Bell film looks like a black man to me and his hat comes way down on the side of his head as Bill pointed out.
-
Good Day Bill.... Just a thought.
....Perhaps, you and Larry Peters know each other personally in the real world outside of the internet, and are aquaintances, or even friends? Don
CV-67, "Big John," USS John F. Kennedy Plank Walker
Sooner, or later, the Truth emerges Clearly
http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/DP.jpg
http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/ROSE...NOUNCEMENT.html
http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/BOND...PINGarnold.html
http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/GHOS...update2001.html
T ogether
E veryone
A chieves
M ore
for the United States
for New York City, Northern New Jersey and Washington, D.C.
"The [Central Intelligence] Agency appears to have had a serious operational interest in Oswald" which "may have led to his use or manipulation."
----JOHN NEWMAN, "Oswald and the C.I.A." (1995)
Yes, Mr. Roberdeau, I know Bill. I think the last time we saw one another in person was in 2000 or 2001. We talk on the phone once in a great while and no, I have never been to Illinois where Bill lives. Most of our contacts are through email. I think I was the one who may have first told him about the Education forum, but as I recall he said with the projects he was working on at the time that he didn't have the free time to be on another forum. I am glad he finally signed up here. I have learned a lot from Bill concerning the JFK assassination as he is well known for sharing information and materials with other researchers. I thought it comical when I read Mr. White's post about him being some sort of possible spy, but I felt Bill was well qualified to answer Mr. White how he saw fit. I think of myself as a bit more of a private person than Bill is. I came onto this site to learn something more about the Kennedy assassination and to debate the evidence and it seems that little of each has been occurring. I hope that once we can all get past the all important who knows who and who is and isn't a CIA agent - just maybe we'll get back around to discussing the Kennedy assassination.
-
Paul - Nowhere have I ever heard on Arnold's MWKK interview that Gordon said the man with the gun had a shotgun. He gave an exaggerated visual interpretation as to how large the barrel looked and that was all. I believe that you are making a wrongful assuption that is of your own making.
Bill mentioned this on another forum and I went and checked and he is right. It seems that it has been the different researchers that make these jumps back and forth and not Arnold.
-
for those lurkers that haven't seen the book called HOAX check out what the non-alteration Z-film *flame* camp is so upset about. Course they do have a problem finding someone, anyone with a degree in Physics that can counter the Costella's HOAX Z-film thesis -- all they can talk about is Jack White.... tsk-tsk!
Why would someone want to get a book that you have said offers no proof of Zapruder film alteration? You read the book - you've had plenty of time to digest what is said in it, yet you wrote: "when it comes to the Z-film, as stated earlier James, I can't prove the film is altered however, " I recommend that before anyone buys that book that they get it in writing that you'll reimburse them their money once they find that after reading it that they too, cannot see anything that proves the Zapruder film is altered.
Mr. Costella's conclusions are so obviously in error that it doesn't take a degree in physics to see his mistakes. However, if he ever offers a conclusion that needs a degree is physics to substantiate it, then we'll approach someone with such credentials to look at it. I don't know if you have noticed this or not, but Mr. Costella has never offered anyone but himself to validate his conclusions. Nowhere have I read where Costella had his work peer reviewed which is what scientist do.
-
Maybe he stopped posting on this thread because no one was addressing anything specific about the alteration claims
That is exactly right, Bill! Looking back on Mr. Healy's replies, I now wonder why he didn't just say to begin with that he had no evidence that the Zapruder film was altered. I had the impression, as I am sure others did as well, that Mr. Healy's referencing of the 'Hoax' book was his way of saying that he did support the photo and film alteration side of the coin. In the event that someone should come up with a specific observation concerning Zapruder film alteration - I will be happy to participate in the discussion.
-
Arnold said he later walked away from the pipe and walked over to the fence. He was then chased away again. Altgens wasn't chased from behind the fence, he was forced from the Underpass.
Had Arnold of not stopped to view over the fence - he would not have been told to move on. There is no indication that Altgens had intentions of taking photos through the trees while standing in the RR yard. Once he could not get onto the overpass - he opted to go down to the street.
-
Yes. I said policemen were on the Triple Underpass. But they were not behind the picket fence turning people away.
Now I am lost. Who said that there were policeman behind the fence turning people away? If you are talking about Gordon Arnold - he was met near the underpass at the steam pipe and he was turned away. Considering the timing of the event and the age description given by Austin Miller - there is a chance that we are talking about one in the same event. Gordon said that he then started easing his way along the fence and the same man told to him to get all the way out of the RR yard.
-
I'm currently retired, a high school graduate with some college. I have been interested in the JFK assassination for almost 30 years - 25 of it studying the evidence of the case. My main area of interest is the study of the witnesses statements correlated with the photographical record. My studies have led me to believe there was a conspiracy in the assassination of President Kennedy.
-
dgh01: Mr. Whites thoughts are just that, his thought's -- get to the source Mr. Peter's, your a "researcher" aren't you? I'd suggest you query Dave Reitzes, evidently the Z-film material in question and specific image is from his website - if you'd like his e-mail address I'll provide it. Maybe Dave will show up here and fill you in?
Because I am a researcher, Mr. Healy - I can tell you that some of us had already been to Reitzes's site, emailed Mr. Reitzes to get the answers we were seeking, and sought additional information from other investigators/researchers before responding.
Same old problem, as I see it: all the do-gooder's [and thats a stretch] posting version after version after version of the Z-film on websites from here to China, most of them undocumented, verified or confirmed as accurate! Clutter up research - Welcome to the 'bigs' Mr. Peter's, welcome to the 'bigs'!!David Healy
Oh but Mr. Healy - If websites were not doing what you have just pointed out, then Mr. White wouldn't be inspired to come up with the film alteration observations that he blesses us with!
-
I dispute Smith's claim that the man 'disappeared towards the car park'. It seems evident that the man turned,ran,turned round and stopped. Nix does not show him 'disappearing'.
Your view that the mist or spray of blood is an illusion I fear is incorrect.
The colour of the grass in my version may indeed emphasize the redness of the mist but there is no doubt that what we see at the moment of the bullet's impact is indeed blood spattering in globular mist mode.
I would appreciate if you could send me your copy of the Nix movie by e mail if possible.
My e mail is: yevgeny@fsmail.net
EBC
Are you sure that you are looking at the right man? The short clip below shows the man who stood next to Emmett Hudson and when he turned and fled up the steps. The man in the red shirt started up the steps and stopped and turn to look back at the limo just before reaching Hudson. (see the first attachment)
I am puzzled by your remark about seeing a mist cloud from an impact of a bullet at the point you have referenced on the Nix film. To first tell if it is blood mist that you are seeing, you should have the background color corrected. I can't send you my version because the file I have is over 21MB and it will not email. However, there is a DVD out there called "JFK: Breaking the News" that has a print of the Nix film with the better color quality. A search on Amazon.com may producewhere to order it.
The other problem I see that you have is that the frame where you see what you think is a mist cloud just happens to equate with Z330. Nowhere on the Zapruder film at that point do you see JFK's head exploding a second time, nor will you see a mist cloud in frame Z330. That alone should tell you that what you think you see on the poor quality Nix copy cannot be a blood mist cloud. (see attachments two and three)
-
I recently downloaded a copy of the Smith film and ran it. I said " That's just the Zapruder film!" so I renamed the Smith file to Zapruder. Do you mean to tell me now that the Smith film is NOT the same as the Zapruder film?
Can someone enlighten me as to what the difference between the Smith and Zapruder films is?
EBC
The A. B. Smith film is the Zapruder film, but without the sprocket holes. Some people within the research community have said that it was placed on a web site for research purposes, but because of some concern over the copyright laws concerning the Zapruder family, the ficticous name A.B. Smith was given to it. That particular poor quality copy of the Zapruder film appears to have had some tape or another substance put on a single frame at some point and it had left the artifacts that we've seen. It appears that Jack has enterained the idea that it was a chorus line of people being pencil drawn across across Elm Street for some odd reason that I cannot imagine. No other copy of the Zapruder film shows this artifact that I am aware of.
-
Bill, I computed it out, and that frame is N41 and the head shot is at N23. The speed of Nix's camera was 18.5fps, so that's .975 seconds X 18.3fps = 17.8 +
313 = Z330-331.
Larry
....Perhaps, you and Larry Peters know each other personally in the real world outside of the internet, and are aquaintances, or even friends? 
Zapruder, Four questions..
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Hello, the site's URL is: http://216.122.129.112/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=3 Hope you like it.
Larry